Interesting quote from Inherit the Wind

[Farnan]

For those that know Inherit the Wind is an American play that attacks McCarthyism using the Scopes Monkey trial as an allegory. It is also known as fairly anti-Christian, however it had a good exchange that I find very interesting.

Background:

Drummond is an agnostic lawyer from Chicago that represented the defense (the school teacher who taught Evolution)
Brady is a former Presidential Candidate who was a demogogical lawyer who is known as a fundamentalist Christian and an assistant to the prosecution.
Hornbeck is a smart aleck atheistic reporter from the Boston Globe that supports the defense.
Cates is the school teacher that was under trial for teaching evolution.


Here is the exchange from Act Three

(Matthew Brady has just died of an ulcer)

Hornbeck

Matthew Harrison Brady died of a busted belly.
(Drummond slams down his brief case)
You know what I thought of him,
And I know what you thought.
Let us leave the lamentations to the illiterate!
Why should we weep for him! He cried enough for himself!
The national tear-duct from Weeping Water, Nebraska,
Who flooded the whole nation like a one-man Mississippi!
You know what he was:
A Barnum-bunkum Bible-beating bastard!
(Drummond rises, fiercly angry.)

Drummond

You smart-aleck! You have no more right to spit on his religion than you have a right to spit on my religion! Or my lack of it!

(What follows is a group of lines in which Hornbeck ridicules Drummond for defending Brady who was his opponent in the courthouse and oppositte in religious views)

Hornbeck

I charge you with contempt of conscience!
Self-perjury. Kindness aforethought.
Sentimentality in the first degree.

Drummond

Why? Because I refuse to erase a man's lifetime? I tell you Brady had the same right as Cates: the right to be wrong!



I really like this exchange, Drummond talks about every man having a right to think and have an opinion, even one which you disagree with.

I also suggest Inherit the Wind Had to read it for my English class, but it turned out pretty good (the reading list for this class is pretty good, the other three books are Brave New World, 1984 and sadly Da Vinci Code)

[Oldgamer]

For those that know Inherit the Wind is an American play that attacks McCarthyism using the Scopes Monkey trial as an allegory. It is also known as fairly anti-Christian, however it had a good exchange that I find very interesting.

Background:

Drummond is an agnostic lawyer from Chicago that represented the defense (the school teacher who taught Evolution)
Brady is a former Presidential Candidate who was a demogogical lawyer who is known as a fundamentalist Christian and an assistant to the prosecution.
Hornbeck is a smart aleck atheistic reporter from the Boston Globe that supports the defense.
Cates is the school teacher that was under trial for teaching evolution.


Here is the exchange from Act Three

(Matthew Brady has just died of an ulcer)

Hornbeck

Matthew Harrison Brady died of a busted belly.
(Drummond slams down his brief case)
You know what I thought of him,
And I know what you thought.
Let us leave the lamentations to the illiterate!
Why should we weep for him! He cried enough for himself!
The national tear-duct from Weeping Water, Nebraska,
Who flooded the whole nation like a one-man Mississippi!
You know what he was:
A Barnum-bunkum Bible-beating bastard!
(Drummond rises, fiercly angry.)

Drummond

You smart-aleck! You have no more right to spit on his religion than you have a right to spit on my religion! Or my lack of it!

(What follows is a group of lines in which Hornbeck ridicules Drummond for defending Brady who was his opponent in the courthouse and oppositte in religious views)

Hornbeck

I charge you with contempt of conscience!
Self-perjury. Kindness aforethought.
Sentimentality in the first degree.

Drummond

Why? Because I refuse to erase a man's lifetime? I tell you Brady had the same right as Cates: the right to be wrong!



I really like this exchange, Drummond talks about every man having a right to think and have an opinion, even one which you disagree with.

I also suggest Inherit the Wind Had to read it for my English class, but it turned out pretty good (the reading list for this class is pretty good, the other three books are Brave New World, 1984 and sadly Da Vinci Code)

This was an excellent play, and I recommend it to everyone.

The exchange that you quote is probably the best section of the entire work, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Drummond quote. It's a sentiment that should be adhered to by everyone who posts in this forum. Instead, if "we" are not agree with, "we" feel duty-bound to attack the opposite side in any debate as a moron and a childish believer in fairy-tales.

One can debate with an atheist or an agnostic in a forum, without attempting to convert him.

One can debate with a theist in a forum, without attempting to shame him.

[Ms. Theodora]

This was an excellent play, and I recommend it to everyone.

An excellent fact too.

One can debate with an atheist or an agnostic in a forum, without attempting to convert him.

One can debate with a theist in a forum, without attempting to shame him.

The essence of discussion. Thinking is dependent on civil communication.

[Farnan]

This was an excellent play, and I recommend it to everyone.

The exchange that you quote is probably the best section of the entire work, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Drummond quote. It's a sentiment that should be adhered to by everyone who posts in this forum. Instead, if "we" are not agree with, "we" feel duty-bound to attack the opposite side in any debate as a moron and a childish believer in fairy-tales.

One can debate with an atheist or an agnostic in a forum, without attempting to convert him.

One can debate with a theist in a forum, without attempting to shame him.

Exactly.

Also, I really suggest that play. I thought it was going to be anti-Christian, but it isn't. It opposses Tyranny of the Mind, the idea that only one opinion has the right to exist and one cannot think for himself, in all forms.

[Dayman]

One can debate with a theist in a forum, without attempting to shame him.

I wish more of my fellow irreligious would do that.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

One can debate with an atheist or an agnostic in a forum, without attempting to convert him.

I wish a lot of theists here and IRL could do that.

[Ms. Theodora]

Are there a lot of theists here?

[Dayman]

A few but I'd say the majority are irreligious. And I think the amount of young earth creationists number below 10.

[Ms. Theodora]

I find anti-religious is usually a better word than irreligious. Especially when dealing with the young in flux.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I find anti-religious is usually a better word than irreligious. Especially when dealing with the young in flux.

Really, Ms. Enoch? You really think atheism is a doctrine for the young! Think about what you said: the new generations like atheism more, which is by far a better sign for survival than a doctrine for old people!

[Dayman]

Not all of use are opposed to religion or antitheist.

Personally I'm not religious, and a weak atheist.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Not all of use are opposed to religion or antitheist.

Personally I'm not religious, and a weak atheist.

I like the way you put that Boeing, and value the sincerity in it.

[Ms. Theodora]

I always think weak is the key word in such a statement concerning the question of Divinity.

[Dayman]

Hopefully you understand what weak atheism is. To people who use the more modern usage of agnosticism it would be agnostic atheism.

[Ms. Theodora]

Very true. A depth of understanding I rarely find exhibited by weak atheists. Pardon my previous tone of mockery.

[Ms. Theodora]

Atheism is as old as man. Anti religious and atheist are confused, they are not the same thing. The very thoughts that underpin atheism would led a true atheist to conclude that religion has its uses, Voltaire Non Philosophe.

[Dayman]

he very thoughts that underpin atheism would led a true atheist to conclude that religion has its uses

Oh how useful it can be.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Atheism is as old as man. Anti religious and atheist are confused, they are not the same thing. The very thoughts that underpin atheism would led a true atheist to conclude that religion has its uses, Voltaire Non Philosophe.

Religion has its uses? Like manipulating people and burning witches, yes, it has indeed .

[HopliteElite]

Religion has its uses? Like manipulating people and burning witches, yes, it has indeed .

Agreed. Religion serves no purpose that secular institutions cannot. Organized religion followed philosophy, not the other way around, so it can easily be said that every philosophic value that Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc hold dear were around before the actual religious institutions were put in place. All adding the belief in God does is twist and manipulate people to engage in horrible behavior.

[Ms. Theodora]

Hope. Charity. How many witch burnings have you attended?
You can not be unaware that atheism, along with most things, manipulates people. What's your point...the sky is blue. Great. It appears so.